This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 28 November 2012, At: 09:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

A Promising Start: An Evaluation of the HIPPY Programin New ZealandGalia Barhava‐Mònteith a , Niki Harré a & Jeff Field a

a Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New ZealandVersion of record first published: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Galia Barhava‐Mònteith, Niki Harré & Jeff Field (1999): A Promising Start: An Evaluation of the HIPPYProgram in New Zealand, Early Child Development and Care, 159:1, 145-157

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443991590112

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Early Child Development and Care, 1999, Vol. 159, pp. 145-157Reprints available directly from the publisherPhotocopying permitted by license only

© 1999 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association) N.V.Published by license under

the Gordon and Breach Publishers imprint.Printed in Singapore.

A Promising Start: An Evaluation of theHIPPY Program in New Zealand

GALIA BARHAVA-MÒNTEITH, NIKI HARRÉ and JEFF FIELD

Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand

(Received 29 November 1999)

Three studies were carried out to investigate the impact of participation in the HomeInstruction Programme for Preschool and Year One Youngsters (HIPPY) on NewZealand children's reading ability, school readiness and school behaviour. In study 1,scores on a Reading Diagnostic Survey were obtained for 77 six-year-old HIPPYchildren and 704 six-year-old non-HIPPY children. In study 2, 29 HIPPY children whohad recently entered school and 29 control children were assessed using four sub-sections of the Metropolitan Readiness tests. In the third study the Behavioural AcademicSelf Esteem Scale (BASE) was completed by teachers for the HIPPY and controlchildren in study 2 as well as all their classmates. HIPPY children were found to showconsistently better performance on all of the measures used and the differencesreached statistical significance on three of the six sub-tests of the Reading DiagnosticSurvey and the BASE scale.

Key words: Early Intervention, program evaluation, HIPPY, school achievement,disadvantaged communities

The consequence of residing in poverty for children's development has become agrowing concern in both academic and political writings over the past two decades.Although the effects are not yet fully understood (Brooks-Gunn, 1995), poverty inindustrialized nations is believed to place children at risk for psychopathology (Mash& Dozois, 1996); maladaptive behaviour, juvenile delinquency (Huston, McLoyd &Coll, 1994; Yoshikawa, 1994, 1995); and educational failure (Ceci, 1996; Morris,Hembrooks, Gelbwasser & Bronfenbrenner, 1996).

Poverty in New Zealand is a growing phenomenon. In 1996, 32.6% of all childrenin New Zealand were living in poverty (Hassall, 1997). Single parent householdsand families from minority ethnic groups, such as indigenous Maori and those withPacific Island descent, are particularly likely to have low socio-economic status(Hassall, 1997).

Children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are said to enter formalschooling with a disadvantage, as they lack fluency in the 'language' of schools(Feagans, Fendt & Farran, 1995). These children may also lack the resources and

145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

146 G. BARHAVA-MONTEITH et al.

experiences that are necessary for school success (e.g. Ramey & Ramey, 1998). Thismay lead to early difficulties at school, that appear to be strongly linked to latereducational failure (Slavin, Karweit & Wasik, 1993). Children from ethnic minoritiesappear to be at additional risk for educational failure (Combes, 1995; Evans, 1995).The link between economic disadvantage and educational failure may be particularlyimportant as school failure can lead to illiteracy, unemployment and in extremecases to antisocial behaviour (Combes, 1995; Evans, 1995; Kagitcibasi, 1996). Oneapproach that may improve the school readiness and subsequent school performanceof children from disadvantaged backgrounds is early intervention that is aimed atincreasing their initial school success.

Early intervention usually involves a broad range of activities whose aim is toenhance young children's development (Ramey & Ramey, 1998). Research hasdemonstrated that extensive, high quality, early interventions have meaningful andsustained effects on children (e.g. Berrueta-Clement, Schweinhart, Bamett, Epstein& Weikart, 1984; Scheinhart & Weikart, 1997). Many successful interventions havebeen university-based and were able to provide a range of resources such as theprovision of full-time, exceptional quality day care, from infancy to school age (e.g.Campbell and Ramey, 1995). When fewer resources are available, it has been foundthat by including parents in interventions, the effectiveness of the programme isconsiderably increased (Fuerst & Fuerst, 1993; Reynolds, 1994; Seitz & Apfel, 1994;Reynolds, Marogenes, Bezruczko & Hagemann, 1996; Kagibitcibasi, 1997).

A small number of home based interventions have been piloted in New Zealandwith varying degrees of success. The main emphasis of these programmes has beenthe improvement of health, education and family functioning (Livingstone, 1998;O'Rourke, 1993). The Home Instruction Programme for Preschool and Year OneYoungsters (HIPPY) is unique in this context as it is specifically aimed at increasingthe school success of children from low SES backgrounds.

HIPPY is a home-based intervention aimed at improving the school success ofchildren from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Lombard, 1994). Theprogramme has been in New Zealand since 1992 and is presently operating in 12disadvantaged rural and urban areas.

HIPPY was developed in Israel in the late 1960's and is a school preparationprogramme focused on pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills (Kagitcibasi, 1996;Lombard, 1994). The program's main objective is to help children prepare forschool by enhancing the educationally oriented practices of their primary caregivers(Bekman, 1998; Kagitcibasi, 1996; Lombard, 1994; Westheimer, 1997). The targetingemphasis of HIPPY is on the educational disadvantage of parents from communitiesunder stress, primarily for financial reasons (National Council of Jewish Women,1993). Families are recruited to the programme primarily through referrals fromcommunity agencies and through 'door-knocking' in target areas. The home tutorsthemselves are mothers of pre-schoolers from the same communities (Lombard,1994). In New Zealand, the local centers are run by a coordinator who is usuallya professional woman with a background in education.

HIPPYfocuses on the parent-child dyad, with an explicit aim of increasing parents'awareness of their potential and strengths as home educators. Parents facilitate their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

AN EVALUATION OF THE HIPPY PROGRAM IN NEW ZEALAND 147

children's learning using a work-book activity for 15 to 20 minutes a day, five daysa week, 30 weeks a year for two years from the age of four (Lombard, 1994). Theexercises were designed to ensure that parents, irrespective of their own educationalbackground, would be able to deliver them successfully to their children. Childrenbegin participation in the program at approximately age four, and continue throughtheir first year at school. The timing of the program may be particularly importantas it has been found that educational interventions that continued through the earlyyears of schooling had a greater impact on children's scholastic achievement thanregular attendance of kindergartens and pre-schools prior to school entry (Reynolds,1994; Reynolds et al, 1996).

An initial evaluation of HIPPY in New Zealand was undertaken by a governmentagency with some positive results regarding children's academic performance(Burgon, 1997). However the results remain very tentative since use was made ofa comparison group of children who differed on many important backgroundvariables from the HIPPY target group. Consequently, the present study aimed toconduct a more rigorous evaluation, by comparing children who had participatedin HIPPY with non-HIPPY children from the same schools. Both an outcome anda process evaluation were carried out The outcome evaluation was concerned witheducational and social outcomes for both children and their primary caregivers. Theprocess evaluation consisted of interviews carried out with primary caregivers, schoolpersonnel in the schools that HIPPY children attended and tutors and co-ordinatorsfrom the participating HIPPY centers (BarHava-Monteith, Harre, & Field, 1999).The results of three sub-studies concerned with the child outcomes are describedin the present article. These studies were concerned with different aspects of earlyschool adjustment The first study was concerned with HIPPY children's educationalachievement as measured by a standardised test of early reading ability. The secondstudy assessed the school readiness of HIPPY children, and the third study wasconcerned with their school behaviour.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Selection of HIPPY Centers and Schools

Five HIPPY centers took part in the evaluation, four located in Auckland, a city ofapproximately 1 million inhabitants, and one located in Huntly, a small rural town.These locations were chosen to represent both the stressed urban environmentsas well as the poor rural areas in which the programme operates in New Zealand.In two of the five centers the population was predominantly indigenous Maori. Intwo others the majority of the population was of Pacific Island origin (such asSamoan, Tongan, Cook Island) and in one there was an ethnic mix of immigrantsfrom Asia and the Middle East as well as Maori, Pacific Island and Europeanparticipants.

The ten schools most commonly attended by children from the five centers ofinterest were approached for their willingness to participate in the study. All schools

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

148 G. BARHAVA-MONTEITH et al.

agreed to participate. As HIPPY specifically targets communities under stress, thechildren from these schools tend to come from low-income households.

Study 1: HIPPY Children's Reading Ability

Participants and sampling

The first group consisted of all children who turned six between 1996 and 1998from eight of the ten participating schools. The eight schools involved in this partof the study were those that regularly administered, to all their children, standardisededucational tests developed to assess New Zealand 6-year-olds (i.e. children who hadattended school for one year), known as the Reading Diagnostic Survey and theBURT Word Reading Test Tests results were obtained from school records, for atotal of 781 children, 77 of whom were HIPPY children. In order to preserveconfidentiality, children's names were deleted with teachers marking the results asreferring to a HIPPY or non-HIPPY child. This meant no gender or backgroundinformation was available for this sample, and so it was not possible to measure ifthe two groups systematically differed in respect to their demographic characteristics.

The Reading Diagnostic Survey

The Diagnostic Survey was designed for New Zealand children to assess their needfor remedial reading tuition (Clay, 1985). It consists of five sub-tests: LetterIdentification, Concepts About Print, Word Test, Writing Vocabulary and Dictation.The survey was standardised using 282 urban children aged 6 to 7 in 1978 (Clay,1985).

LetterIdentification:Th\s test has 54 items aimed at establishing the child's knowledgeof all letters, both lower and upper case. The child receives a score if they eithername the letter, provide a word beginning with that letter or can make the soundof the letter.

Concepts About Print: This sub scale consists of 24 items which are aimed atestablishing the child's knowledge of concepts about print such as where the frontof the book is, the first letter in a word, big and small letters and uses of punctuation.

Word Tests: This test is aimed at sampling the child's reading vocabulary. Wordlists consisting of 15 words are compiled from the high frequency words in thereading materials of the school. The child is then asked to read out the words.

Writing Vocabulary: This sub test is aimed at exploring the writing behaviours ofthe child. The child is encouraged to write down all the words that s/he can.

Dictation: Simple sentences are used in this dictation task. The child is markedfor each sound s/he writes correctly.

The BURT Word reading test

This test is individually administered and is said to measure the child's wordrecognition skills. The test consists of a card with 110 words printed in differingsizes and prints, graded by approximate difficulty level. The child is asked to readas many words on the card as s/he can. In conjunction with other data (such as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

AN EVALUATION OF THE HIPPY PROGRAM IN NEW ZEALAND 149

Table 1 Means and (Standard Deviations) on the Reading Diagnostic Survey for HIPFYChildren and All Other Children

LetterIdentification(max scon 54)Mean (SD)

ConceptsAbout Print(max scon 24)Mean (SD)

Word(maxMean

Testscore 15)(SD)

BurtMean (SD)

WritingVocabularyMean (SD)

Dictation(max score 37)Mean (SD)

HIPPY 46.92 (9.90) 15.92 (3.59)** 9.92 (4.10)" 14.01 (8.93)* 25.34 (18.60) 25.31 (10.51)childrenn=77

All other 45.04 (12.50) 14.60 (4.19) 8.51 (4.56) 11.60 (9.24) 21.71 (16.60) 23.51 (10.54)childrenn=704

*/><0.05 (two tailed)"p<0.01 (two tailed)

the Diagnostic Survey) this test is said provide a broad estimate of the child's readingachievement (Gilmore Croft & Reid, 1981). This test has been found to haveinternal reliability of 0.96, and test retest reliability of 0.95 (Gilmore et aL, 1981).

Results

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the raw scores on each ofthe six tests from the Reading Diagnostic Survey for the HIPPY children and theirschool peers in the eight schools sampled in Auckland and Huntly. A serious oftwo-tailed t tests were carried out to compare the performance of the two groups.

As Table 1 shows HIPPY children had consistendy higher means on each of thesix sub tests and the difference reached statistically significant levels for three sub-tests: concepts about print, word test, and the BURT.

Study 2: HIPPY Children's School Readiness

Participants and sampling

The study consisted of HIPPY and control group children who had attended oneof the ten participating schools for a maximum of six months. They were thereforeaged between 5-5V& years. A total of 58 children participated in this part of the study,29 HIPPY children and 29 control children. Permission to assess children wasobtained through their primary caregivers. In order to obtain HIPPY children, thecoordinator at each HIPPY center was asked to approach the caregivers of all thechildren from the 10 schools who had been to school for a maximum of six months.Information received from die coordinators indicated that that no caregivers refusedto participate.

In order to obtain control caregivers and children, an invitation to participatein the study was sent to caregivers of all new entrants and year one children at dieten schools. The invitations included a brief description of die research, as well as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

150 G. BARHAVA-MONTEITH et at.

an offer of a $10 food gift voucher for participating in the research. All HIPPY andControl children whose parents agreed to their participation were included.

Background information was obtained from primary caregivers. The two groupshad fairly similar characteristics there were 15 girls and 14 boys in the HIPPY groupand 16 control females and 13 control males. Approximately half of both groupswere of Pacific Island origin and approximately 40% were Maori, with a smallproportion in both groups (approximately 10%) of European descent. The twogroups were different in that whereas 52% of HIPPY families spoke a language otherthan English at home, only 23.5% of control families did so.

Metropolitan Readiness Test Level One (1986)

The Metropolitan Readiness Tests (MRT) were designed in the US to assess theskills of children in their early school years (Nurss & McGauvarn, 1986). The MRThave been found to predict school success in the US (Chew & Morris, 1984), Canada(Meyer, Wilgosh & Mueller, 1990) and South Africa (Oosthuizen, Van Rensburg &Jordaan, 1997). The tests cover the four major areas that are seen to be essentialfor pre-reading and pre-mathematical learning. These areas are: Visual Skill, AuditorySkill, Language Skill and Quantitative Skill (Nurss & McGauvarn, 1986).

Four out of the six sub-tests on the MRT were selected (Auditory Memory, VisualMatching, School Language and Listening, and Quantitative Language) because oftiming constraints. The two sub-tests that were not administered were reading tests,an area covered by the Reading Diagnostic Survey and the Burt.

Auditory Memory: This test measured the child's immediate recall of a series ofwords spoken to her/him. This test has been found to have internal reliability of0.80, and test retest reliability of 0.68 (Nurss & McGauvarn, 1986).

Visual Matching: Here, the child's ability to discriminate among visual symbols suchas letters, numerals and letter-like forms is measured. It was found to have internalreliability of 0.78, and test retest reliability of 0.64 (Nurss & McGauvarn, 1986).

School Language and Listening: Children's listening comprehension is assessed inthis test by requiring children to integrate, organize and draw inferences frominformation. School Language and Listening was found to have internal reliabilityof 0.73, and test retest reliability of 0.82 (Nurss & McGauvarn, 1986).

Quantitative Language: Children's understanding of certain basic quantitativeconcepts such as size and number-quantity relationship is evaluated in this sub-test.It was found to have internal reliability of 0.66, and test retest reliability of 0.77(Nurss & McGauvarn, 1986).

Procedure

Two trained senior Psychology Undergraduates administered the tests to childrenin groups of no more than three. The order in which the tests were administeredwas counter-balanced. Each testing session lasted no longer than 30 minutes.

Results

The mean scores and standard deviations obtained on each of the four sub testsof the MRT for the HIPPY and control children are shown in Table 2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

AN EVALUATION OF THE HIPPY PROGRAM IN NEW ZEALAND 151

Table 2 Means and (Standard Deviations) Obtained by HIPPY and Control Children on theFour MRT Sub-Tests

Auditory Visual School Language QuantitativeMemory Matching School Language language(max score 12) (max score 14) (max score 15) (max score 11)

HIPPY n=29 6.76 (3.03) 10.52 (2.92) 8.14 (3.36) 5.48 (2.26)Control n=29 6.21 (2.51) 9.83 (3.30) 6.76 (3.09) 4.93 (2.42)

Although the means for HIPPY children on each of the four sub tests wereconsistently higher than those of the control children, there were no statisticallysignificant differences between the groups on any of the four sub tests.

Study 3: HIPPY Children's School Behaviour

Participants and sampling

This study involved three groups: the HIPPY children from study 2, the controlchildren from study 2, and all the other children who were in the same classes asstudy 2 participants, but who did not take part in the earlier study. The last of thesegroups was included to see how HIPPY children compared to all other children intheir class, not only to the control sub-sample who were self-selected. Teachers infour of the schools who participated in study 2 completed a behavioural measure,the Behavioural Academic Self Esteem Scale (BASE) for all the children in theirclass. The four schools were selected because the majority of HIPPY childrenattended them and they were representative of the researched areas. BASE scoreswere obtained for 28 HIPPY children, 38 control children and 47 children who didnot participate in the school readiness measure. Background variables were notavailable for the children who did not participate in study 2.

Behavioural Academic Self Esteem Scale (BASE)

The BASE is a behavioural evaluation scale designed in the US. The scale measureschildren's academic self-esteem through the direct observation of their classroombehaviour by their teachers. The scale has a total of 16 items such as "This childshows self-direction and independence in activities" and "This child deals withmistakes or failures easily and comfortably". The teachers rate children on a scaleof one to five, one being "never" and five being "always". The scale was found tohave 0.83 internal consistency and a correlation of 0.71 when the same child wasassessed by two different teachers using a US sample (Coopersmith & Gilberts,1982). In the present study the scale was found to have an alpha of 0.92 and splithalf reliability of 0.90.

Results

The mean score (and standard deviation) out of a possible 80 was 56.54 (9.83) forthe HIPPY children, 54.55 (13.98) for the control children and 47.26 (14.17) forthe children who did not participate in the school readiness measure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

152 G. BARHAVA-MONTEITH et al.

Analysis of variance carried out on the groups' means revealed a statisticallysignificant difference between the three groups F{2,llO)=5AS, /<0.01. Post Hocmean comparisons (Tukey HSD) revealed that both the HIPPY (/<0.01) and controlgroup (/<0.05) had significantly higher means than all the other children in theirclass. There was no significant difference between the HIPPY group and the controlgroup on the BASE scale.

DISCUSSION

HIPPY children's performance on all 11 measures was consistently higher than thatof their peers, whether they were compared to control group children, or otherschool peers. The difference reached statistical significance on four measures, instudy 1 HIPPY children scored significantly higher than all other children in theirschools on Concepts About Print, the Word Test and the Burt In study 3 HIPPYchildren scored significantly higher than children whose parents did not participatein the research on the Behavioural Academic Self Esteem scale.

The results of the present study are very similar to those found in evaluationsof HIPPY that have taken place elsewhere. Previous studies also found that HIPPYchildren obtained significantly higher mean scores than their peers on measuresof reading and maths and received better teacher ratings (Bekman, 1998; Burgon,1997; Kagitcibasi, 1996; Lombard, 1994).

Before discussing the results in detail and the implications they have for HIPPYin New Zealand, it is important to first discuss how differences between the non-HIPPYand the HIPPY children included in the studies may have affected the results.In study 1 (reading ability), the lack of background information about the childrenmeant that there may have been undetected differences between the two groups,that impacted on the results. Given that HIPPY targets disadvantaged families, itis unlikely that these children were in some way privileged prior to participationin. the programme, but this cannot be ruled out.

As outlined, studies 2 and 3 (school readiness and school behaviour) also couldnot use random allocation to intervention and control groups. The HIPPY childrenwere self-selected through their caregivers' voluntary participation in the programitself. The control group children were also self-selected through their caregivers'willingness to participate in the research. Whereas in some situations non-randomallocation may result in an intervention group that is generally more motivated andtherefore likely to score higher on the relevant measures than the control group,in the current study there were reasons to believe the reverse may have been thecase. That is, the control group children may have come from more educationallyoriented families than the intervention group children, or the school populationas a whole. It can be argued that when an intervention group targeted on the basisof need, is compared to a self selected control group, the intervention group mayrepresent a more disadvantaged sub-group than the control. This has been foundin previous studies including an evaluation of a youth employment programme(Grossman & Tierney, 1993) and in the original research on the Head Startprogramme (Lee et al., 1990).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

AN EVALUATION OF THE HIPPY PROGRAM IN NEW ZEALAND 153

Interviews carried out with school personnel as part of the larger evaluation ofHIPPY, revealed that the caregivers of control children were more likely to be visitingthe school and participating in school-based activities than most other parents. Thepresence of a selection bias in the control group was supported by the finding thaton the Behavioural Academic Self Esteem scale (the BASE), both the HIPPY groupand the control group scored significantly higher than all other children in theirclasses. It must also be noted that while 52% of HIPPY families spoke a languageother than English at home, only 23.5% of control families did so, suggestingperhaps a greater familiarity with the New Zealand school system amongst controlfamilies. Arguably, if HIPPY children were compared to a more similar controlgroup, larger gains may have been found.

Possible Explanatory Mechanisms

It is suggested that participation in HIPPY may have benefited children in a three-fold way. First, children's intellectual skills may have been enhanced through workingon the HIPPY materials over the two-year period. Second, as a consequence ofparticipation, these children may be more motivated to participate in educationalactivities and invest effort in their schoolwork. Finally, as it is primary caregiversthat deliver the programme, it could be the case that caregivers became more awareof their child's educational needs.

It is possible that HIPPY directly enhanced children's intellectual skills throughthe program's materials. These were specifically designed to facilitate the developmentof memory, problem solving, classification, and expressive language ability (Lombard,1994). Through successfully completing the activities it is also possible that HIPPYchildren gain a sense of competence, which subsequently enhances their motivationto invest effort in educational activities. This was supported by the findings on theBehavioural Academic Self Esteem Scale (BASE), where HIPPY children were ratedas having higher Academic Self Esteem than their (non-control group) peers.

As described previously, the studies reported here were part of a larger evaluationwhich included interviews with HIPPY caregivers and school personnel. In theseinterviews, caregivers consistently made the observation that HIPPY children haveenhanced motivation:

"/ have two children, the old one didn't do HIPPY but the young one did, and there isa big difference between the two. When they both come home, only the younger one willgive me her homework, the older one wouldn't, shell chuck it on the side and leave itthere 'till Thursday." (The speaker is a Maori Tutor).

The third mechanism by which HIPPY may have been effective is through increasingparents' awareness of their child's educational needs which in turn leads to a homeenvironment that is more supportive of learning. Involving parents in earlyinterventions has long been argued to improve family functioning (Zigler, Taussig& Black, 1992), which in turn may allow for greater emphasis to be placed onchildren's educational advancement Indeed an evaluation of an intervention program

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

154 G. BARHAVA-MONTEITH ef a).

which focuses on facilitating minority parents' functioning as teachers, demonstratedthat intervention parents provided more educationally stimulating environmentsfor their children (Johnson, Walker & Rodriguez, 1996). In the current study,parents in HIPPY reported that programme participation had led them to havegreater awareness of their child's educational needs.

"I've been going to school now with my older boy and I'm more interested now. DoingHIPPY has helped me understand that education is very important and I have to playa bigger part in helping them, with my other children as tuelL I tell them to listen to theteacher. Being in HIPPY itself made me able help them more and want to know more aboutwhat they are doing in school and just keep up with them." (The speaker is a PacificIsland mother).

Furthermore, some parents also commented that they had reorganized theirfamily life in order to give children's learning priority "HIPPY has taught me howto make a schedule, like I've got so many things to do and put priorities first and whichone is important and spending time with my children." (The speaker is a Europeanmother).

Implications of Successful Early Intervention

Early educational intervention has been found to reduce the total cost of educationfor children who participate. In the Perry preschool project it was found thatintervention children were proportionally less likely to be assigned to expensivespecial education services, and if they were assigned, they were more likely to receivefewer years of remedial teaching than their non-participants peers (Berrueta-Clementet oL, 1984). Early interventions have also been found to reduce the rates of graderetention (e.g. Reynolds, 1994). Although the current study did not investigate thisissue specifically, it is notable that the Reading Diagnostic Survey, on which HIPPYchildren obtained significantly better results than their peers, is one of the keymethods used in New Zealand to identify children in need of remedial reading.It is likely therefore, that HIPPY participation may reduce the need for childrento receive this teacher-intensive, and thus costly service.

Study Limitations and Future Research

As discussed earlier, the study did not use random allocation, a method that couldbe considered in future evaluations to minimise self-selection and other forms ofbias. However the use of random allocation may create some ethical tension betweenpractitioners and researchers as it results, in the short term, in denying a serviceto some families who wish to obtain i t If random allocation is not possible, thenit is proposed that children should be carefully matched on variables such as age,gender, ethnicity, single parent status, and income levels.

An alternative to random allocation may be the use of before and after measures.Assessing the home environment prior to joining the programme maybe particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

AN EVALUATION OF THE HIPPY PROGRAM IN NEW ZEALAND 155

important It has been suggested that differences often emerge between interventionand control groups only after family variables are taken into account (SterlingHonig, 1996).

The current study was somewhat limited in the range of outcomes considered.In particular, differences in children's mathematical ability as a consequence ofprogramme participation were not assessed adequately in the present study. Theonly measure that assessed children's mathematical ability was the quantitativelanguage sub-test on the Metropolitan Readiness Tests, where no significantdifferences were found. Given that internationally, improvements in the mathematicalability of HIPPY children were one of the most robust findings, it would be usefulfor future evaluations to focus more closely on this aspect

The present study was limited to short-term outcomes of the programme. Oneof the main criticisms voiced with respect to early interventions is that initiallypositive cognitive effects gradually dissolve over the primary and high school years(Locurto, 1991a, b). Conversely, it has been argued that the use of short-termcognitive and achievement measures to assess the effectiveness of early interventionsmay be insufficient as their effects are often found in medium term outcomes. Forexample improvements may be found in the child's assignment to special educationservices and grade retention (Berrueta-Clement et al, 1984; Reynolds, 1994; Reynoldset al, 1996; Slavin et al, 1993), school attendance (Seitz & Apfel, 1994) delinquency(Schweinhart & Weikart 1997; Yoshikawa, 1994, 1995; Zigler et al, 1992) and evenfuture employment (Berrueta-Clement et al, 1984; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997;Zigler et al, 1992). It is suggested that future research on the programme look moreclosely at these outcomes. Indeed, longitudinal research on HIPPY childreninternationally demonstrated that HIPPY children were more likely to stay in schoolthan their peers (Kagitcibasi, 1996; Lombard, 1994).

In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that HIPPY plays a valuablerole in enabling children from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed in school.Programs such as this may help break the cycle of poverty in our disadvantagedcommunities.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Lesley Max the National director of theHIPPY programme in New Zealand, the Pacific Foundation, the coordinators of theHIPPY centres, the principals and teachers from the schools, and the tutors andcaregivers who participated in the research. Michelle Melville-Smith and MarijaSokorac are thanked for their assistance in collecting the data. Watties Heinz isthanked for their donation of gift vouchers. The research was partially founded bythe Health Research Council of New Zealand.

References

BarHava-Monteith, G, Harré, N. and Field, J. (1999). HIPPY New Zealand: An evaluation overview. NewZealand Journal of Social Policy, 12, 106-121.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

156 G. BARHAVA-MONTEITH et al.

Bekman, S. (1998). A fair chance: An evaluation of the mother-child education programme. Istanbul Turkey:Mother-Child Education Foundation Publication.

Berrueta-Clement, J.R., Schweinhart, L.J., Barnett, W.S., Epstein, A.S. and Weikart, D.P. (1984). Changedlives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youth through age 19. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation (No. 8).

Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Strategies for altering the outcomes of poor children and their families. InEscape form poverty: What makes a difference for children? Edited by J. Brooks-Gunn. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Burgon, J. (1997). Appendix F: The HIPPY programme in family service centers. Final report Family service centersevaluation. Wellington: Department of Social Welfare.

Campbell, FA. and Ramey, C.T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-Americanstudents at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational ResearchJournal, 32(4), 743-772.

Ceci, S.J. (1996). American education: Looking inward and outward. In The state of Americans, Editedby U. Bronfenbrenner, P. McClelland, E. Wethington, P. Moen and S.J. Ceci. New York: The FreePress.

Chew, A.L. and Morris, J.D. (1984). Validation of the Lollipop test: A diagnostic screening test of schoolreadiness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(4), 987-91.

Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland: Heinemann.Clay, M.M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. (3rd ed). Auckland: Heinemann.Combes, J. (1995). Programmes and issues related to early childhood. In centre for education research

and innovation, Our children at risk. Paris: OECD publication service.Coopersmith, S. and Gilberts, R. (1982). Behavioural Academic Self-Esteem: A rating scale. Palto Alto

California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.Evans, P. (1995). Children and youth "at risk". In centre for education research and innovation. Our

children at risk. Paris: OECD publication service.Feagans, L.V., Fendt, K. and Farran, D.C. (1995). The effects of day care intervention on teacher's ratings

of the elementary school discourse skills in disadvantaged children. Intemational Journal of BehaviouralDevelopment, 18(2), 243-261.

Fuerst, J.S. and Fuerst, D. (1993). Chicago experience with an early intervention program. The specialcase of the child parent centre program. Urban Education, 28(1), 69-96.

Gilmore, A., Croft, C. and Reid, N. (1981). BURT word reading test: New Zealand revision. Wellington:New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Grossman, J. and Tierney, ?. (1993). The fallibility of comparison groups. Evaluation Review, 17(5), 556-571.

Hassall, I. (1997). The multiple effects of poverty on children and young people: Issues and answers. A Reporton the Massey University, Albany Conference.

Huston, A.C., McLoyd V.C. and Garcia Coll, C. (1994). Children in poverty: Issues in contemporaryresearch. Child Development, 65, 275-282.

Johnson, D.L., Walker, T.B. and Rodriguez, G.G. (1996). Teaching Lowe-Income Mothers to Teach TheirChildren. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 101-114.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lee, V.E., Brooks-Gunn, J., Schnur, E. and Liaw, F.R. (1990). Are head start effects sustained? Alongitudinal follow-up comparison of disadvantaged children attending head start, no preschool, andother preschool programs. Child Development, 61, 495-507.

Livingstone, I.D. (1998). Parents as first teachers summary report-evaluation of pilot project Summary of reportsby: A. Boyd University of Auckland. K. Campbell & P. Silva University of Otago. P. Durning, Royal New ZealandPlunket Society. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Locurto, C. (1991a). Beyond IQ in preschool programs? Intelligence, 15, 295-312.Locurto, C. (1991b). Hands on the elephant: IQ, preschool programs, and the rhetoric of inoculation-

a reply to commentaries. Intelligence, 15, 335-349.Lombard, A.D. (1994). Success begins at home. (2nd ed.). Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group.Mash, E.J. and Dozois, D.JA. (1996). Child psychopathology: A developmental systems perspective. In

Child Psychopathology. Edited by E.J. Mash & R.A. Barkley. New York: Guilford Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12

AN EVALUATION OF THE HIPPY PROGRAM IN NEW ZEALAND 157

Meyer, M., Wilgosh, L. and Mueller, H.H. (1990). Effectiveness of teacher-administered tests and ratingscales in predicting subsequent academic performance. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 36(3),257-264.

Morris, P.A., Hembrooke, H., Gelbwasser, A.S. and Bronfenbrenner, U. (1996). American families:Today and tomorrow. In The state of Americans, Edited by U. Bronfenbrenner, P. McClelland, E.Wethington, P. Moen, & S.J. Ceci. New York: The Free Press.

National Council of Jewish Women (1993). HIPPY: Home instruction programme for preschool youngsters.Proceedings of the HIPPY International research seminar. Israel: Hebrew University.

Nurss, J.R. and McGauvran, M.E. (1986). Metropolitan readiness tests. The Psychological CorporationHarcourt Brace Jovanovich, INC.

Oosthuizen, S., Van Rensburg, E. and Jordaan, C. (1997). Comparison of the predictive validity of theAptitude Test for School Beginners and of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 84, 59-65.

O'Rourke, M. (1993). Parents as first teachers programme. The New Zealand Education Gazette, 72(15),1-2.

Ramey, C.T. and Ramey, S.L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist,53(2), 109-120.

Reynolds, AJ. (1994). Effects of a preschool plus follow-on intervention for children at risk. DevelopmentalPsychology, 30(6), 787-804.

Reynolds, A.J., Marogenes, N.A., Bezruczko, N. and Hagemann, M. (1996). Cognitive and family-supportmediators of preschool effectiveness: A confirmatory analysis. Child Development, 67, 1119-1140.

Schweinhart, L.J. and Weikart, D.P. (1997). The High Scope Preschool Curriculum Comparison StudyThrough Age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117-143.

Seitz, V. and Apfel, N.H. (1994). Parent-focused intervention: Diffusion effects on siblings. Child Development,65, 677-683.

Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L. and Wasik, B A. (1993). Preventing early school failure: What works? EducationLeadership, 50(4), 10-18.

Sterling Honig, A. (1996). Evaluation of early childhood enrichment programs. Early Childhood Developmentand Care, 120, 29-37.

Westheimer, M. (1997). Ready or not: On home-based response to the school readiness dilemma. EarlyChild Development and Care, 127-128, 245-257.

Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and educationon chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 28-54.

Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency.The Future of Children, 5(3), 51-75.

Zigler, E., Taussig, T. and Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention a promising preventative forjuvenile delinquency. American Psychologist, 47(8), 997-1006.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

9:55

28

Nov

embe

r 20

12